Robert Watson wrote: > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Skip Ford wrote: > >>>- "-a" now means "all processes", >> >>Thanks. :-) I'm a little surprised. You seemed pretty dedicated to a >>per-process tool. > > I was, but then I read your e-mail and became convinced that the first > patch that would be submitted against procstat(1) would be a "-a" patch. :-)
Yep, would've happened. Now the first patch submitted will be a "-w interval" patch... :-) >>>- A new "-k" has been added, which prints the kernel thread stacks for >>>threads >>> in a process (although not swapped out or actively running threads). >>> This >>> is extremely useful for answering questions of the sort "But *why* is >>> the >>> process blocked in UMA". It has both a simple mode (-k_, which lists >>> just >>> kernel function names, and a slightly more detailed mode (-kk), which >>> adds >>> the offset into the function. >> >>This is excellent. Does this absolutely have to depend on DDB and KDB? > > Currently, yes, as stack(9) is conditional on DDB, and the MD bits of > stack(9) are defined in db_trace.c (and in some cases, depend on DDB > definitions, such as DDB types, although I think not critically so). I've > also been pondering breaking out stack(9) from DDB but haven't done that > yet. Maybe that will be today's task, as I'd like -k to work without the > kernel debugger, as it has use significantly beyond kernel debugging. That'd be great if it worked without DDB. It just "feels" like it should. This tool is a very nice addition. Thanks for writing it and for asking for feedback, then putting up with the responses. -- Skip _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"